TPcases

Database of Transfer Pricing Case Laws

Poland vs “Shared Service Center”, March 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 1369/20

Posted on March 11, 2021 | By Courts of Poland | No comments

Category: Disallowed Deduction, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Services and Fees | Tag: Anti-avoidance provisions, Cost deduction limitation, Interpretation, Intra-group services, Non-deductible costs, Shared service center

« Prev | Next »

A shared service center in Poland both provided intra-group services to the group and in doing so also received and paid for services from other group companies.

At issue was payments for the services that the Shared Service Center in Poland received.

Under some circumstances intra-group service costs are non-deductible in Poland according to local anti-avoidance provisions aimed at base eroding payments, and according to the tax authorities the payments for intra group services received by the Shared Service Center were non-deductible according to these anti-avoidance provisions.

The tax authorities had considered that the payments for the received services were non-deductible according to these provisions.

The Administrative Court ruled in favour of “Shared Service Center”.

An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities.

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court.

Click here for English translation

Click here for translation

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.55While low value-adding intra-group services may provide benefits to all recipients of those services, questions may arise about the extent of the benefits and whether independent parties would have been willing to pay for the service or perform it themselves. Where the MNE group has followed the guidance of the...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.54As discussed in paragraph 7.6, under the arm’s length principle an obligation to pay for an intra-group service arises only where the benefits test is satisfied, i.e. the activity must provide the group member expected to pay for the service with economic or commercial value to enhance or maintain its...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.52This subsection sets out the elements of a simplified charge mechanism for low value-adding intra-group services. This simplified method is premised on the proposition that all low value-adding service costs incurred in supporting the business of MNE group members should be allocated to those members. The basic benefits of using...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.43This section provides specific guidance relating to a particular category of intra-group services referred to as low value-adding intra-group services. Section D. 1 contains the definition of low value-adding intra-group services. Section D.2 sets out an elective, simplified approach for the determination of arm’s length charges for low value-adding intra-group...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.32It may be necessary to perform a functional analysis of the various members of the group to establish the relationship between the relevant services and the members’ activities and performance. In addition, it may be necessary to consider not only the immediate impact of a service, but also its long-term...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.17These services may be available on call and they may vary in amount and importance from year to year. It is unlikely that an independent enterprise would incur stand-by charges where the potential need for the service was remote, where the advantage of having services on-call was negligible, or where...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.11In general, no intra-group service should be found for activities undertaken by one group member that merely duplicate a service that another group member is performing for itself, or that is being performed for such other group member by a third party. An exception may be where the duplication of...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.8Some intra-group services are performed by one member of an MNE group to meet an identified need of one or more specific members of the group. In such a case, it is relatively straightforward to determine whether a service has been provided. Ordinarily an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances would...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.7The analysis described above quite clearly depends on the actual facts and circumstances, and it is not possible in the abstract to set forth categorically the activities that do or do not constitute the rendering of intra-group services. However, some guidance may be given to elucidate how the analysis would...

TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.6Under the arm’s length principle, the question whether an intra-group service has been rendered when an activity is performed for one or more group members by another group member should depend on whether the activity provides a respective group member with economic or commercial value to enhance or maintain its...

Supplemental Guidance

Leave a Reply

Poland vs Shared Service Center, February 2020, Administrative Court, SA/PO 935/19A Polish shared service center paid for intra-group services from other group companies while also providing services to related entities. The tax authority argued these costs were non-deductible under Polish anti-avoidance provisions targeting base-eroding payments. The Administrative Court disagreed, ruling in 2020 that service costs directly connected to income-generating activities...

Italy vs Rohm and Haas Italia s.r.l, February 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 3599 13/02/2020Rohm and Haas Italia sought VAT deductions on costs allocated under a cost-sharing agreement with group subsidiaries. The Italian Tax Authorities denied the deductions, finding the taxpayer had not proved the services were real or beneficial. The Regional Tax Commission dismissed the company's appeal, and Italy's Supreme Court upheld that...

Italy vs Rohm and Haas Italia s.r.l, June 2023, Supreme Court, Case No 17233/2023An Italian company sought to deduct costs for intra-group services, but the tax authority disallowed the deductions on the grounds that the taxpayer failed to prove the effectiveness and relevance of the services received. The Regional Court partially annulled the assessment. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, but during...

Colombia vs Taxpayer, November 2020, The Constitutional Court, Sentencia No. C-486/20A Colombian taxpayer challenged the constitutionality of Article 70 of Law 1819 of 2016, which introduced general anti-avoidance rules and restrictions on royalty and intangible cost deductions. The taxpayer argued the provisions were unconstitutional. In November 2020, the Colombian Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge, confirming that the GAAR legislation was...

Poland vs “X-TM” sp. z o.o., March 2022, Administrative Court, SA/PO 1058/21A Polish company sold trademarks to a subsidiary, then paid licence fees for their use back, deducting royalties in its 2013 tax return. The tax authority challenged the arrangement as artificial and tax-motivated. The Polish Administrative Court set aside the assessment in 2022, ruling that taxpayers were not obliged to...

Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22A Polish company deducted interest on intra-group loans and management fee expenses for FY 2015, with both arrangements involving a related Delaware entity. The tax authority denied the deductions, finding the loan structure artificial and the management fees insufficiently substantiated. The Polish Administrative Court upheld the authority's assessment in April...

Poland vs “H. LVAS Sp. z oo”, September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA / Go 234/22A Polish subsidiary deducted expenses for management and support services provided by its German parent, classified as low value-adding services. The tax authority disallowed the deductions due to insufficient documentation linking specific services to the invoiced amounts. The Administrative Court found the assessment flawed and remanded the case for re-examination,...

Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, July 2024, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1228/22A Polish company deducted interest on intra-group loans and management fees paid to a related Delaware entity for FY 2015. The tax authority denied both deductions, arguing the loans were artificial tax-avoidance arrangements and the management fees lacked sufficient substance. Poland's Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer,...